It is in part because of James Bopp, famed conservative attorney and the force behind the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court case, that corporations, unions and various special interest groups may now raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in support of, or in opposition to, political candidates.

This month, Bopp talked with OpenSecrets Blog about his work, his outlook for the 2012 election cycle and the drawbacks of today’s campaign finance laws.

OpenSecrets Blog: What changes have you seen in the 2010 cycle as a result of the Citizens United decision, and what changes are you expecting in the 2012 cycle?James Bopp: That’s a hard question to answer. I guess the most significant thing that I saw was the emergence of independent expenditure PACs as a force in the election, and I think we will see a lot more of that next year. They provided more information to voters and that’s always helpful, but whether that has an impact ultimately on who wins or loses is impossible to say.OpenSecrets Blog: Many people have criticized the increasing amount of money being spent on elections. Are we heading in the right direction with 2012 elections expected to involve unprecedented amounts of money?Bopp: Yes, definitely. We still have a woeful shortage of information that voters have about the political process or about our government. And we need much more information to be conveyed to voters so that they better understand the government and the role public officials play in our government and what the various candidates would do if they are elected. We need a lot more information to be conveyed, so we need a lot more money to be spent. To a certain extent, we are moving in the right direction because I think a lot more money will be spent.

OpenSecrets Blog: What parts of the current campaign finance laws do you want to keep? Do you support any regulation?Bopp: Yes, I think direct political activity such as contributions to candidates, committees, PACs and party committees ought to be reported and disclosed so voters can evaluate who is supporting particular candidates and causes. I think that’s helpful for voters. As to contribution limits, my opinion on that seem to ebb and flow depending on how cynical I feel on a particular day.

In some cases, I feel like there ought to be contributions limits and other days I’m not sure if it causes more harm than good. The one I thing I’m sure about is that limits need to be much higher. The amount is way too low. The result of these contribution limits is that the process has become less transparent. There’s been tremendous distortion as a result of McCain-Feingold. It takes money away from candidates and political parties to PACs, moving farther and farther from transparent sources.

OpenSecrets Blog: What do you think of the federal judge’s decision recently to reverse the ban on direct contributions by corporations? Will it be a case that could make it to the U.S. Supreme Court?Bopp: It’s a natural, logical and perfectly predictable outcome of the Citizens United decision. I can’t say whether it will make it to the Supreme Court.

OpenSecrets Blog: What are some of the biggest issues in campaign finance laws today?

Bopp: By far there are two big problems. They are the distorted effect of the contribution limits and how they are terribly distorting the whole election process. And then the second is the complexity and burdensomeness of all the regulation that make it extremely difficult for people to both understand what they can do and comply. And the result of that is to favor the wealthy because they are the ones who can afford to hire people, and it drives people of average means out of the political process.

OpenSecrets Blog: There’s been some opposition to the conservative super PAC you formed. What is your response to that?

Bopp: It’s the silly things, like Democracy 21 calling contributions to super PACs “soft money.” Those are just ignorant. The only criticism that some people need to have answered is can a federal candidate solicit earmark funds for independent expenditure PACs and of course that question will be answered by the FEC as a result of the Democrats saying they want to do this. In other words, they are asking for permission to have party officials raise money for super PACs. They just want the FEC to say its OK. I can read the Federal Elections Campaign Act and it clearly allows that. They seem to want some sort of permission, and that’s fine.

OpenSecrets Blog: What is the distinction for you between soft money and hard money?

Bopp: I prefer the phrase federal and non-federal, and that is of course what is applicable under federal law. Candidates cannot raise non-federal funds. They can raise federal funds. Federal funds are just what is regulated under the Federal Elections Act. Super PACs are federal political action committees, so they would be subject to federal law.

OpenSecrets Blog: Do people have a right to know who is funding super PACs and independent expenditure groups?

Bopp: I think it is appropriate for federal political action committees to report their donors, but not because there is a right to the information anywhere, but because some people find the information useful. No one has any right to any information from private entities. It’s just what the law requires. It’s not because there is a right to the information anywhere in the constitution or bill of rights.

=====

Money Talks is OpenSecrets.org’s ongoing interview series, in which prominent players in the arena of campaign finance, lobbying and political influence speak for themselves. New interviews are published each month on OpenSecrets Blog.

Media Contact

Viveca Novak
(202) 354-0111
press@crp.org

Search

Archives

Categories

Count Cash & Make Change.

OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and
public policy. Whether you're a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen,
use our free site to shine light on your government.